Get Reel: The horror, the horror

You might want to quote Colonel Kurtz after seeing how Oscar has treated scary movies over the years

Bob Tremblay/DAILY NEWS STAFF

With the release of "Evil Dead" earlier this month, moviegoers had the opportunity to see a horror film, albeit a remake of a 1981 horror film which received the sequel treatment in 1987 and 1992.

The original "Evil Dead" was excessively and unapologetically violent. The sequels mixed violence with humor. The remake takes a different approach. It shows babies and puppies playing in a field of flowers. Uh, maybe not. This film is a true black-and-blue and red-all-over splatterfest with no body part safe from dismemberment. Anytime you see a shotgun, a nail gun, a chainsaw and a paper cutter in a cabin in the woods, you know they're going to be used in ways not found on the instructions.

Not surprisingly, "Evil Dead" was a hit at the box office as movies with gore sell and movies with gobs of gore sell even better. Yes, the gore the merrier. So, is the film any good? Of course not. It's junk, but it's fun junk if you have hankering for depravity. And who doesn't?

The problem with movies like "Evil Dead" is that they contribute to the perception that horror films are inherently inferior to other genres because they appeal to our baser instincts. That these films can be incredibly dumb and poorly made hasn't helped their reputation. Sure, most horror films are moronic, at least those that care only about spilling entrails and yelling "boo" in the dark. But not all horror films have their IQs drowning in blood.

Like Rodney Dangerfield, horror films just don't get any respect. The fact that the horror genre has so many offshoots can muddy the bloody waters. Most horror films films either try to scare the audience out of their minds or sicken them out out of their lunches. Some try to do both. Most accomplish that by traveling the very popular slasher route (see the bazllionth remake of "Friday the 13th" as an example) or dabbling in torture porn (popularized by the "Saw" movies). Others add in humor, some slyly as in "An American Werewolf in London" or obviously as in the "Scary Movie" series. The "Scream" films, meanwhile, revel in satire, mocking the genre's stereotypes. Just don't look in that mirror. You might see the reflection of a homicidal maniac. Cue the scream.

Other horror films feature a monster element, as in the many "Frankenstein," "Dracula," and "King Kong" movies. And when that monster happens to be a human, you end up with such charming individuals as Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill in "The Silence of the Lambs," Jack Torrance in "The Shining" and Annie Wilkes in "Misery." The monster can be an animal, too, such as the friendly shark in "Jaws."

Another standby is demonic possession, used to chilling effect in "Rosemary's Baby," "The Exorcist" and "The Omen." Yes, the devil made them do it. The "Evil Dead" films summon up demons, too. They don't play nice. And then there are the horror movies featuring those lovable, flesh-munching zombies.

Other horror movies prefer to play twisted mind games, dabbling in the macabre and murder most foul. Any movie based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe, such as "The Tell-Tale Heart," would fit this bill. And woe to anyone who disturbs or mistreats the dead. They have a way of wreaking vengeance by not only ruining your day but lowering your property values. See "Poltergeist' as a vivid example.

As for popularity, let's just say you won't be shocked to learn that horror films have consistently been an audience favorite. Look at the annual list of top-grossing movies and you'll the original versions of "Frankenstein" and "King Kong," "Psycho," "The Exorcist and "Jaws" either at or near the top. Adjust for inflation and "Jaws" ranks as the ninth highest-grossing movie of all time. "Halloween," reportedly made for $325,000, grossed $60 million worldwide in 1978, making it the high-grossing independent movie at the time. Gross is an appropriate word here, too, as a healthy, or unhealthy, segment of the population simply enjoys getting grossed out. As special effects have advanced over the years, there's literally nothing a filmmaker can't hack off or impale.

Sadly, too many filmmakers spend too much time wallowing in gory special effects and neglect such cinematic basics as an imaginative screenplay and a cast who can do other things besides holler, bleed, maim and die. Horror films have certainly become more revolting and more comical. They just haven't become scarier, nor have they been particularly worthwhile, with a few exceptions.

One of the few filmmakers who knows how to freak out an audience without necessarily unleashing torrents to blood is the brilliant Mexican director Guillermo del Toro, whose resume includes the "Hellboy" films, "Mimic," "Cronos," "The Devil's Backbone" and "Pan's Labyrinth." If the latter film doesn't set your nerves on edge, may we suggest "The Orphanage," a film del Toro produced. These movies are creepy and they're kooky, mysterious and spooky, and all together ooky. Now snap your fingers twice.

Another film that genuinely had audiences clinging to their armrests was "The Sixth Sense." Its writer-director M. Night Shyamalan even added a holy (expletive) "reveal." His subsequent films, however, haven't measured up. Rare is the horror film that combines smarts with "ouch, that smarts."

At least the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a.k.a. the Oscar folks, recognized "The Sixth Sense" with six nominations, including Best Picture, Best Screenplay and Best Director. The cast even received nods with Haley Joel Osment nominated for Best Supporting Actor and Toni Collette nominated for Best Supporting Actress. The film went 0-6.

In fact, the Oscar folks have been very stingy handing out statuettes to horror films. During an 80-year span from 1928 to 2008, my unofficial count of Oscar nominations garnered by horror films totals around 165, most of those in special effects categories. Triumphs have numbered approximately 42 for a dismal 25 percent winning mark. During this period, only four horror films have been nominated for Best Picture: "The Exorcist," "Jaws," "The Silence of The Lambs" and "The Sixth Sense." Only "Lambs" won. "The Shining," considered by many to be one of greatest horror films to ever spew blood from an elevator, not only failed to get a Best Picture nod, it didn't receive one Academy Award nomination. Yikes! "Psycho," another certified horror classic, at least received four nominations. It went 0-4. "The Birds" got one nod. "Alien" and "Aliens," two more gems, struck out with Oscar, too.

Directors of horror films have received he shaft from the Academy, as well. Again, only four nominees in 80 years: Alfred Hitchcock for "Psycho," William Friedkin for "The Exorcist," Jonathan Demme for "The Silence of the Lambs" and Shyamalan for "The Sixth Sense." Only Demme won. That Steven Spielberg wasn't nominated for "Jaws" is a farce. That he was able to petrify audiences with a malfunctioning shark is a tribute to his directorial acumen. As for Hitchcock, the Oscar folks clearly had their long knives out for him. The British master never won an Academy Award for Best Director. Zounds!

Actors and actresses haven't fared much better. In 80 years, horror film winners total six: Fredric March for Best Actor in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Ruth Gordon for Best Supporting Actress in "Rosemary's Baby," Kathy Bates for Best Actress in "Misery," Jodie Foster for Best Actress in "The Silence of the Lambs," Anthony Hopkins for Best Actor in "The Silence of the Lambs" and Martin Landau for "Ed Wood."

The Oscar folks haven't felt much love for comedies, either. You could almost come to the conclusion that if a film is too much of a crowd-pleaser, it won't please the Academy. Yes, this isn't always the case. For example, the Oscar folks went overboard for "Titanic." Still, horror films have been treated like a pariah by the Academy over the years. If executed skillfully, films that frighten are just as worthy for honors as films that enlighten. The seamier side of the horror genre shouldn't create a bias against films with more on its mind that a deeply embedded ax blade. So, Academy, get off your high horse before Leatherface removes its legs with a large buzzing gizmo.

Three's company

It’s now time for TRIVIA.

Last month’s tester: He was suspected of involvement in the murder of a hoodlum. The event triggered a bloody gang war that took scores of lives. He then moved to Hollywood, changed his name and played a mobster in a gangster movie. Name the actor and the movie

Answer: Alex Rocco. The movie was "The Godfather." He also appeared in "The Friends of Eddie Coyle."

Joseph Walsh of Hyde Park was the first reader to answer the question correctly. Others readers submitting correct answers were David Walsh of Weymouth, Tom Lespasio of Quincy, Chris Libby of Marlborough, Mike McKeever of East Bridgewater, Paul Sullivan of Randolph, Patrick Burke of North Scituate, Jean Howard of Holliston, Bill McGoff of Quincy, Ann Marie Woods of Whitman and Bob Oliveri of Carver. Congratulations!

This month’s tester: From 1935 to 2002 (and likely beyond that year), three films accomplished something that no other films have accomplished. Name the films and the accomplishment. Clue: All three films were released in the same decade. Another clue: More has not been merrier.

The first reader to answer the question correctly will receive products from Fruits & Passion.

Trivia enthusiasts can call me at 508-626-4409 or email me at rtremblay@wickedlocal.com. Make sure you leave your name, address and phone number on my message machine or email so I can contact you if you answered the question correctly. The address is needed so winners can be mailed their prize. Callers should spell out their names slowly and clearly so their names will be spelled correctly in the column.

Answers will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16. Good luck!